Every critics has it's purpose. Someone payed for it, someone need a favor, someone hates everybody by default .... Thing is, we all have brains - you can play the demo and decide for yourself. May it be the worst game (by who's standards???) but if YOU like it, it's the best game in the world.

For me the Quick Time Events are nearly a game braker, but I realise that is me, my opinion.
The overall polish and presentation is quiet good, and after a few patches the game works as intended. There are mods to make it easier as well. So a balanced view not taking into account my own bias against QTE's would have to be a lot better than the said reviewer.

For me the fact that it is a AAA title released DRM free should give it 80% straight off and the fact that the developers are putting together a bigger patch shows good support.

But all reviews are valid to a point except the reviews published by some developers recently for their own games to give a false high score. Australian Atomic magazine had a recent article about that.

Regards MarkL

The funny things is that...

The reviewer does NOT give any score, it's metacritic that "thinks" that the reviewer would've given the game 55%.

Honestly these are the reviews I like. No score, just arguments. You agree or you don't.

Arguments ≠ complaints. Highlighting all of the negatives and virtually none of the positives to rationalize a conclusion he likely came to before even sitting down to play isn't a review.

We should quit giving this site attention because it's simply awful at what it tries to do.

Some of his complaints are legitimate, although the claim of "boring story" seems contrary to majority of the other reviews. As I commented on the site, it seems like a list of things that he doesn't like about the game than a review which should encompass all aspects of the game, good or bad.

But Quaxi is right about Metacritic assigning its own score, and that not having a score is possibly a good thing. As to the review itself, I have some doubts.